CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT TASK-III

DRAFTING PLEADING AND CONVEYANCING

ASSIGNMENT-III

COURSE CODE: LAW 540

MAINTENANCE UNDER 125 CRPC

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Ms. Ankit Paul Kaur SANYA GUPTA

Assistant Professor of Law BBA. LLB. (Hons).

School of Law L1704

Lovely Professional University 11716113

HYDERABAD

APPLICATION NO. 622 of 2012

MEMORANDUM OF PARTIES

Mrs Meenakshi Dubey, aged 28 years, D/o Mr. Sanjeev Arya, W/o Mr. Rahul Dubey, R/o House
No.A-24, Lajpat Nagar, Near Main Bazaar, Hyderabad

… PETITIONER

Versus

Mr.Rahul Dubey, aged 29 years, S/o Mr.Ramcharan Dubey, R/o House.No.56, Vaibhav Kunj,
Hyderabad

… RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE BY THE WIFE U/S. 125 OF THE

__________________

Sanya Gupta

Advocate

Counsel for Petitioner

Most Respectfully Showeth as follows:

1. That the petitioner & the respondent are the legally wedded husband & wife of each other
and their marriage was solemnized on 02.12.2004 at Hyderabad as pert the Hindu rites,
rituals and customs.

2. That the respondent took the petitioner to UK on 25.12.2004, and the marriage was
consummated on 29.12.2004 by both the parties.

3. That on the day of consummation, the respondent began shouting insults at the petitioner
and committed such behaviors on her body, causing the complainant to become
physically unwell and incurring grave suffering to her.

4. That the respondent plunged into harsh verbal rants and began questioning the petitioner's
loyalty, coupled by driving abuses based on the erroneous idea that the petitioner was
unable to conceive children. The petitioner was subjected to severe verbal and emotional
abuse as a result of this.

5. That the couple went to see and confer with Dr. Shreya Gosh, a competent gynaecologist.
The respondent was diagnosed with prostrate cancer, which prevented the wife from
conceiving. As a result, the respondent was unable to entitle the petitioner to conception.

6. That, following the death of the respondent's father on December 10, 2005, both parties
returned to India, where the petitioner was treated with bitter feeling, hatred, and violence
by the respondent and his family members. As a result, the petitioner suffered a great deal
of mental anguish as a result of this indecent behavior. After administering the
respondent's father's death rites, the couple returned to the United Kingdom.
7. That both parties returned to India on 03.01.2006 due to the demise of the petitioner's
mother. The respondent's behavior was not accommodating, as he flatly refused to stay
with his wife's family and remained with his own.

8. That the respondent began making more monetary demands on the complainant, putting
great economic strain on the petitioner.

9. That the petitioner was tortured to savage beatings and repeated threats by the respondent
in exchange for signing the paperwork authorizing the husband's third wife. It's worth
noting that the respondent was previously married to a woman called Harnoor Aggarwal,
and that this information was kept from the petitioner.

10. That the petitioner and the respondent returned to India on March 20, 2008, and the
petitioner was sent to her parents' residence by the respondent, which is typical of
evasive conduct.

11. That the father of the petitioner decided to conciliate the situation between the both. It is
pertinent to mention here, that during this phase the petitioner & his brother Srinivasa
Rao, caused grievous hurt to the complainant by inflicting kick-blows on her stomach.
That the petitioner was restrained by her tuft and made to inscribe her signatures on the
divorce documents, causing her significant pain and anguish.

12. That the respondent is an IT professional who works in a private corporation in the
United Kingdom, garnering a quite decent amount of £5,000 per month
(approximately Rs 50,000), and that he has proceeds from the property that he sold to his
brother, demonstrating and he's more than capable of providing maintenance to the
petitioner.
13. Because the offences were committed within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, the
Hon'ble Court has entire authority to consider and try the current application.
 ****

PRAYER CLAUSE

1. For grant of order of maintenance in favour of Petitioner and against the Respondent;

2. Any other relief, as the Court in exercise of its judicial wisdom, deems fit.

Dated: 21.12.2012
PETITIONER
THROUGH
ADVOCATE

_____________
Sanya Gupta

VERIFICATION:

I, Meenakshi Dubey, the concerned complainant in this case, do hereby certify that the contents
of the Para 1 to 13 are true and best to my knowledge and as derived from the records of the
case, no part of it is false or malafide and nothing has been concealed there from.
Verified at District & Sessions Court, Hyderabad, on 21.12.2012.

_______________

Meenakshi Dubey

Deponent

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,

HYDERABAD

COMPLAINT NO. 622 of 2012

MEMO OF PARTIES

Mrs Meenakshi Dubey, aged 28 years, D/o Mr. Sanjeev Arya, W/o Mr.Rahul Dubey, R/o House
No.A-24, Lajpat Nagar, Near Main Bazaar, Hyderabad

… PETITIONER

Versus

Mr.Rahul Dubey, aged 30 years, S/o Mr. Ramcharan Dubey, R/o House.No.56, Vaibhav Kunj,
Hyderabad

… RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT
I, Meenakshi Dubey, aged 28 years, D/o Mr. Sanjeev Arya, W/o Mr. Rahul Dubey, R/o House
No.A-24, Lajpat Nagar, Near Main Bazaar , Hyderabad do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
as under:

1. That I am the complainant in the accompanying case and I am well conversant with the
facts and circumstances of the case & application to depose the present affidavit.
2. That I have read & understood the contents of the accompanying complaint & state that
the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
3. That no part of the petition is false and nothing has been concealed there from.
4. That no other petition concerning the same issue has been filed in any other coordinate
court, superior court or any foreign court.

____________

Deponent

VERIFICATION:
Verified at District & Sessions Court, Hyderabad, on 21.12.2012 that the contents of the above
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and as derived from the records of the case, no
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.

_____________ ________________

Meenakshi Dubey THROUGH

Deponent Sanya Gupta

LIST OF WITNESSES (ENCLOSED COPY)

2. Sanjeev Arya, Father of the Complainant

3. Dr.Shreya Gosh, Gynecologist.